The terms ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ do not correctly represent any real technological differences in how pages are delivered. The real issue is ‘clean URL’ or ‘messy URL’ — query strings is a common example. The engines are far better today at dealing with these URLs, so the historical advantage of clean URLs has dissipated considerably, but messy URLs still remain a problem and their use should be minimized.

Recently I was told that "there are no SEO Secrets" and to claim such a thing was deceitful. Hmmm, maybe. So I looked up the word "secret" — I already know what SEO means :-).

Secret:

1. done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others;
2. kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged;
3. …

Now go look at some random search results. What percentage of these web masters have any clue at all about SEO? Maybe 5%. So if 5% of people know something, is it still a secret? If not, then when does something go from "secret" to "not widely known" and from there to "common knowledge"?

I’m not even going to propose a number. Insread, I’ll rely on the second definition: SEO secrets are known to the "initiated or privileged". And it’s easy to find out who they are: they are at the top of the search results!

If you are not subscribed to SE News, then you should be. I read every issue in the first few days of the month. This month’s articles on Supplemental Results and Google Sitelinks are top notch. Mostly I agree with their articles and that’s more-or-less true this month as well, with a couple of exceptions.

In the list of "Top 10 Quality Indicators" there are a number of items presented as fact that I can not back up with actual measurements. Conversely, I don’t yet have the data to disprove them either, so I’ll let all that slide for now.

But there is a non-technical issue that keeps coming up that I will take issue with today. The referenced article [subscribe to read the whole thing as it does provide some good information and food for thought] claims:

"Now that Google has a spider to determine page quality for sites in their ad program, it won’t be long before that data is folded into Google’s organic search results."

In my opinion, this is just plain incorrect. Here’s why.

As one of several forms of actionable "anittrust" or "unfair trade practices" the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has identified the "tying arrangement" whereby use of one product or service is predicated on use of another. This is a very complex area of law loaded with judicial discretion and balancing corporate rights and "public policy" so all bets pre-trial are pretty much off, but I’ll give you mine anyway.

The FTC case against Microsoft vis-a-vis Windows and IE was precisely a "tying arrangement" case where the FTC claimed that Microsoft improperly used its market influence in the PC operating system market to create an (unfair) advantage in the browser market. While this is a classic example of unfair practice, it is not the only one.

With respect to Google, if the paid advertising programs — either Adwords or Adsense — impacted organic ranking in a positive way, this would create a tying arrangement between their "free" search and their paid programs seeking to coerce webmasters to buy advertising in exchange for better ranking.

Conversely, if participation in paid advertising programs created a negative organic ranking influence compared to non-participants, this would constitute contract fraud in as much as a material aspect of the advertising contract was non-disclosed. The FTC might or might not act on this as an unfair trade practice, but you can bet some large firm of attorneys will be happy to take it as a class action lawsuit.

This also came up in my recent review of VEO for OptiSmarts subscribers where the author of VEO claims various similar effects with Adsense. Again, same problem, undisclosed contract terms and tying arrangements.

In all cases, when it comes to tying organic and paid programs together, "there be dragons."

Like most of what is written about SEO, when you don’t know how computers work, everything is a mystery and (worse) impossible garbage sounds totally reasonable. This is not the first time in four and half years that we’ve gone ’round about Google tracking page visit times and it’s no more true this time than it was the last half dozen. Give it another six months and we’ll hear it again.

I knew it was B.S. when I bought it, so I won’t return it, but I’ve just about run a highlighter dry marking up the crap in "Visitor Optimization". As soon as I stop laughing, I’ll post a less hostile, and more informative analysis, but in twenty words or less … the technology that would make VEO possible simply does not exist. This is not an opinion, it is simply about how the web works. Stay tuned, I’ll prove it, as soon as I settle down. 😉

This has come up many times, but a new OptiSmarts subscriber asked…

I have enjoyed your optismarts videos so far and am looking forward to future videos. Your speaking voice and style are very pleasant and I appreciate your ability to speak simultaneously to both novices and more advanced users.

I am in the top 10 for my 4 preferred keywords at Google (thanks to OptiLink) and do not want to do anything to lose my rankings. Is it possible to overdo the usage of the no follow attribute to the point where Google thinks I am overoptimized?"

…so I’ll answer again in greater detail.

"There are theoretically two ways nofollow can be a problem, one I’ve seen, and the other I have not. The first is simple misuse, generally due to lack of complete understanding, and the second is an actual "penalty" which I have never seen. Let’s spend a moment on both of these.

Misuse is really really easy, and the problem starts with not knowing what pages you actually want to have ranked. A classic example is an Adsense site where nofollow is used to push all the PR to the home page. OOPS! It is likely that the internal pages optimized for the low traffic but high conversion search phrases are de-ranked in favor of a page (the home page) that never earned any money. For many sites the wholesale use of Dynamic Linking (via nofollow) is not what you want. These sites should use it very selectively where a site more focused on home page traffic should nofollow more extensively.

But an outright penalty is another matter. I do not think this exists and am not aware of even a single case where nofollow can be objectively construed as the "smoking gun". Moreover, there are many very high ranking sites making effective use of nofollow without any sign of penalty. In a recent OptiSmarts video seminar I show one that is a household name. Others exist as well.

As a general rule, I find that "over-optimization penalties" are actually caused by something unrelated, but I do still keep looking.

Okay, this one comes up a lot, and it came up again today in an email from my good friend Michael Campbell so I thought I’d try to actually blog for a change.

It seems that someone (who shall remain namesless for the momeent at least) is raising all a fuss about how Google is using the Hilltop algo, and you therefore have to have their brand new widget to rank and nothing else will do.

Drivel! Here’s part of my note to Michael:

To suggest that Google is using Hilltop is like saying they use the Meta Keywords tag. Please! Hilltop was never used, and will never be used, because it is totally old news that never out performed Google circa 2000. Moreover, Google gets Hilltop for free, but they paid really money for what Taher brought with him, so if anyone is looking for a new algo at Google, they should look at TSPR and its cousins. We can be certain they are using BlockRank or a kin even now.

Worse, these guys seem to think that "Hubs and Authorities" is synonomous with Hilltop. Wrong again. Hubs and authorities is Kleinberg’s algorithm, which Hilltop references as prior art, but they are not the same.

And finally, always follow the money: why would Google roll out a new logorithm when search quality is not a critical success factor? New revenue streams is what they are about. They already own search, why would they need to "improve" it?

I’ve blogged this before, but…

Google is just sitting on search technology to keep some other pair of grad students from retiring before they grow facial hair. They use maybe one tenth of what they have licensed or patented. But they continue to buy and patent more because it keeps other grad students poor and drives SEOs crazy reading academic papers that don’t matter instead of turning the crank on what does matter.